I just wanted to add in connection with my comment about we Orthodox not having St. Josaphat on our radar (and Isa's confirmation of the same) I don't think that it is a coincidence that if one does a Google search of the Saint - under any variety of his names or spellings thereof - you simply will not find any Orthodox source material or discussion about him for pages and pages of links- unless, like here, it is started by non-Orthodox. There are pages and pages of Catholic sourced polemic and apologetics in his hagiography - much of which makes him almost sound like a cartoon character rather than a once living person.

I go back to my point about hagiography - while on one level it may be viewed as positive instructions for the faithful on a Christian life well lived (any number of purposes - charity, kindness, martyrdom etc....) one simply can not deny the propaganda value it may also possess in the struggle between competing ecclesiastical structures during the history of Christendom.

I think that many Catholics - both east and west - like the stories of St. Josaphat because they provide them a 'comfort' level, if you will - which justifies their position regarding claims of being 'Orthodox in union with the Pope.' To call upon his intercession during Rome's 'Week of Prayer for Christian Unity' is insulting to any Orthodox from the most open-minded to the most traditional -regardless of their underlying feelings about ecumenical contact with the Roman Church and unity in general.

As to the revival of the cult of St. Josaphat in the late 20th century - that has as much to do with the heavy handed treatment of Ukrainians and Ukrainian Greek Catholics at the hands of the Soviets and their unwitting allies in the Russian Church as it does with reality.

As for Greek Catholic witnesses and martyrs, for me the real histories of 20th century men, like Blessed Pavel and Blessed Teodor and their resistance to the liquidation of their Greek Catholic Churches post WW2 speak more vibrantly and with more power of truth than do dusty 17th century stories borrowed in many ways from the calumny of the of anti-Semites of east Europe and the myth building regarding saintly lives used to educate peasants by both the Roman and the Orthodox Churches of that era.

That's why I think this discussion is destructive and pointless. And I would add, while I don't expect anyone to 'check with me' before starting a post - be prepared for a response with which you may take issue.

I agree with much that is here, in particular, the penultimate paragraph.

For those of you who read Ukrainian and would like to know what information was collected on Saint Josaphat, the Basilians of Poland have published in book form the documents that were involved for his glorification. These documents were translated from Latin into Ukrainian. Here is the link in Ukrainian.

Also, I would like to recommend the book, Saint Jospahat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. It's been out of print for many years, so your best bet is through an inter-library loan. The book contains excerpts from Saint Josaphat's letters, where he defends his innocence against accusations that he harmed Orthodox Christians. Also there are the sworn testimonies given by Orthodox Christians who admitted to persecuting Saint Josaphat, yet defended his innocence and holiness.

For those of you who read Ukrainian and would like to know what information was collected on Saint Josaphat, the Basilians of Poland have published in book form the documents that were involved for his glorification. These documents were translated from Latin into Ukrainian. Here is the link in Ukrainian.

Also, I would like to recommend the book, Saint Jospahat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. It's been out of print for many years, so your best bet is through an inter-library loan. The book contains excerpts from Saint Josaphat's letters, where he defends his innocence against accusations that he harmed Orthodox Christians. Also there are the sworn testimonies given by Orthodox Christians who admitted to persecuting Saint Josaphat, yet defended his innocence and holiness.

I have much respect and admiration for the Basilian fathers, for many years they were our neighbors at the old UGCC in Binghamton before they built a new facility and they were kind and humble men. One of them had gone to seminary with my uncle in Canada prior to my uncle's leaving the Greek Catholic Church to become the first married priest ordained by Bishop Orestes Chornock after his consecration in 1938.

However, any source material on this subject originating from them is not likely to be taken as more than polemic by most Orthodox. As one Orthodox with great empathy for my Greek Catholic brothers and sisters, I have to say that the use of St. Josaphat as an exemplar of Church unity does make all of us Orthodox 'run for the hills.' I just don't get it, no disrespect intended.

For those of you who read Ukrainian and would like to know what information was collected on Saint Josaphat, the Basilians of Poland have published in book form the documents that were involved for his glorification. These documents were translated from Latin into Ukrainian. Here is the link in Ukrainian.

Also, I would like to recommend the book, Saint Jospahat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. It's been out of print for many years, so your best bet is through an inter-library loan. The book contains excerpts from Saint Josaphat's letters, where he defends his innocence against accusations that he harmed Orthodox Christians. Also there are the sworn testimonies given by Orthodox Christians who admitted to persecuting Saint Josaphat, yet defended his innocence and holiness.

I have much respect and admiration for the Basilian fathers, for many years they were our neighbors at the old UGCC in Binghamton before they built a new facility and they were kind and humble men. One of them had gone to seminary with my uncle in Canada prior to my uncle's leaving the Greek Catholic Church to become the first married priest ordained by Bishop Orestes Chornock after his consecration in 1938.

However, any source material on this subject originating from them is not likely to be taken as more than polemic by most Orthodox. As one Orthodox with great empathy for my Greek Catholic brothers and sisters, I have to say that the use of St. Josaphat as an exemplar of Church unity does make all of us Orthodox 'run for the hills.' I just don't get it, no disrespect intended.

You live with the disdain toward Catholics, and dis-information about Catholics on this board every day and YOU don't get it?...well...I get it.

And sure...the documentation about St. Josaphat MUST be all lies. We can rest assured that the saint ate the dogs that ate the Orthodox corpses that the saint dug up and fed to them, however.

For those of you who read Ukrainian and would like to know what information was collected on Saint Josaphat, the Basilians of Poland have published in book form the documents that were involved for his glorification. These documents were translated from Latin into Ukrainian. Here is the link in Ukrainian.

Also, I would like to recommend the book, Saint Jospahat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. It's been out of print for many years, so your best bet is through an inter-library loan. The book contains excerpts from Saint Josaphat's letters, where he defends his innocence against accusations that he harmed Orthodox Christians. Also there are the sworn testimonies given by Orthodox Christians who admitted to persecuting Saint Josaphat, yet defended his innocence and holiness.

Yes, we've dealt with them before. They can't exist: the King of Poland and Lithuania said the Orthodox did not exist after 1596. Kuntsevych died 12 November 1623 in the realm of Poland and Lithuania, where no Orthodox existed, as the Union of Brest tells us, after 1596.

"Persecut Saint Josaphat." Besides the problem of their non-existence, according to the King's enforcement of the "Union of Brest," there the problem of these non-existent Orthodox having power in Vatican supporting Poland-Lithuania, in order to persecute him.

Who are these non-existent Orthodox Christians whose "sworn testimonies" are given. Surely they had names, no?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

For those of you who read Ukrainian and would like to know what information was collected on Saint Josaphat, the Basilians of Poland have published in book form the documents that were involved for his glorification. These documents were translated from Latin into Ukrainian. Here is the link in Ukrainian.

Also, I would like to recommend the book, Saint Jospahat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. It's been out of print for many years, so your best bet is through an inter-library loan. The book contains excerpts from Saint Josaphat's letters, where he defends his innocence against accusations that he harmed Orthodox Christians. Also there are the sworn testimonies given by Orthodox Christians who admitted to persecuting Saint Josaphat, yet defended his innocence and holiness.

I have much respect and admiration for the Basilian fathers, for many years they were our neighbors at the old UGCC in Binghamton before they built a new facility and they were kind and humble men. One of them had gone to seminary with my uncle in Canada prior to my uncle's leaving the Greek Catholic Church to become the first married priest ordained by Bishop Orestes Chornock after his consecration in 1938.

However, any source material on this subject originating from them is not likely to be taken as more than polemic by most Orthodox. As one Orthodox with great empathy for my Greek Catholic brothers and sisters, I have to say that the use of St. Josaphat as an exemplar of Church unity does make all of us Orthodox 'run for the hills.' I just don't get it, no disrespect intended.

You live with the disdain toward Catholics, and dis-information about Catholics on this board every day and YOU don't get it?...well...I get it.

And sure...the documentation about St. Josaphat MUST be all lies. We can rest assured that the saint ate the dogs that ate the Orthodox corpses that the saint dug up and fed to them, however.

M.

Silly podkarpatska! Don't you know that the Vatican only tells us the truth? That the Orthodox gave up their Faith freely and without any coercion on the parts of the Vaticans sons? No force nor secular inducements were EVER used to bring the Orthodox "into Catholic unity"? Surely the Latin Poles knew better than Ruthenian Byzantines when the former overruled the latter and pushed for Kuntsevych's canonization? He's a saint: the Vatican says so. The case is closed.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

For those of you who read Ukrainian and would like to know what information was collected on Saint Josaphat, the Basilians of Poland have published in book form the documents that were involved for his glorification. These documents were translated from Latin into Ukrainian. Here is the link in Ukrainian.

Also, I would like to recommend the book, Saint Jospahat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. It's been out of print for many years, so your best bet is through an inter-library loan. The book contains excerpts from Saint Josaphat's letters, where he defends his innocence against accusations that he harmed Orthodox Christians. Also there are the sworn testimonies given by Orthodox Christians who admitted to persecuting Saint Josaphat, yet defended his innocence and holiness.

I have much respect and admiration for the Basilian fathers, for many years they were our neighbors at the old UGCC in Binghamton before they built a new facility and they were kind and humble men. One of them had gone to seminary with my uncle in Canada prior to my uncle's leaving the Greek Catholic Church to become the first married priest ordained by Bishop Orestes Chornock after his consecration in 1938.

However, any source material on this subject originating from them is not likely to be taken as more than polemic by most Orthodox. As one Orthodox with great empathy for my Greek Catholic brothers and sisters, I have to say that the use of St. Josaphat as an exemplar of Church unity does make all of us Orthodox 'run for the hills.' I just don't get it, no disrespect intended.

You live with the disdain toward Catholics, and dis-information about Catholics on this board every day and YOU don't get it?...well...I get it.

And sure...the documentation about St. Josaphat MUST be all lies. We can rest assured that the saint ate the dogs that ate the Orthodox corpses that the saint dug up and fed to them, however.

M.

Silly podkarpatska! Don't you know that the Vatican only tells us the truth? That the Orthodox gave up their Faith freely and without any coercion on the parts of the Vaticans sons? No force nor secular inducements were EVER used to bring the Orthodox "into Catholic unity"? Surely the Latin Poles knew better than Ruthenian Byzantines when the former overruled the latter and pushed for Kuntsevych's canonization? He's a saint: the Vatican says so. The case is closed.

For those of you who read Ukrainian and would like to know what information was collected on Saint Josaphat, the Basilians of Poland have published in book form the documents that were involved for his glorification. These documents were translated from Latin into Ukrainian. Here is the link in Ukrainian.

Also, I would like to recommend the book, Saint Jospahat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. It's been out of print for many years, so your best bet is through an inter-library loan. The book contains excerpts from Saint Josaphat's letters, where he defends his innocence against accusations that he harmed Orthodox Christians. Also there are the sworn testimonies given by Orthodox Christians who admitted to persecuting Saint Josaphat, yet defended his innocence and holiness.

I have much respect and admiration for the Basilian fathers, for many years they were our neighbors at the old UGCC in Binghamton before they built a new facility and they were kind and humble men. One of them had gone to seminary with my uncle in Canada prior to my uncle's leaving the Greek Catholic Church to become the first married priest ordained by Bishop Orestes Chornock after his consecration in 1938.

However, any source material on this subject originating from them is not likely to be taken as more than polemic by most Orthodox. As one Orthodox with great empathy for my Greek Catholic brothers and sisters, I have to say that the use of St. Josaphat as an exemplar of Church unity does make all of us Orthodox 'run for the hills.' I just don't get it, no disrespect intended.

You live with the disdain toward Catholics, and dis-information about Catholics on this board every day and YOU don't get it?...well...I get it.

And sure...the documentation about St. Josaphat MUST be all lies. We can rest assured that the saint ate the dogs that ate the Orthodox corpses that the saint dug up and fed to them, however.

M.

My comments hardly merited such sarcasm - especially from someone who professes to have much love and understanding of the eastern church. It is not unreasonable from an academic point of view to discount material prepared by a group with a 'stake' in the argument, particularly when the argument is one of such emotional power - and one which has been the source of such exaggeration and lies - from both sides historically.

You would have me accept at face value 'apologia' issued by authors with a stake in the game while dismissing polemics from the other side. Neither can stand the scrutiny of critical analysis.

If you are honestly telling the Orthodox posters here that the use of a Saint of the western Church as controversial as is St. Josaphat is to the eastern Church as the proper 'icon' , symbol for, and representative of 'church unity' than I can only conclude that your view of any future 'unity' entails one thing and one thing only - the east must accept terms from the west on the order of those proposed by Grant to Lee at Appomattox Court House - unconditional surrender. Not gonna happen. And I don't expect it to happen the other way either. By the way, I also take what your Pope says at face value in these matters and I don't see his public statements on the matter (nor those of his late predecessor) saying any such thing as well.

Give this a break. You will not change any minds here on the subject matter of this thread. I accept the fact that Ukrainian Catholics revere him as a saint. The rest of Orthodoxy has to deal with that at some point in time. Saying that does not mean that I find their hagiography to be much more than propaganda to advance the justification for the schism within traditional Ukrainian Christianity and to advance the disputes between western Ukrainians, their more Russophile minded eastern brothers and with the Russians themselves.

If you are honestly telling the Orthodox posters here that the use of a Saint of the western Church as controversial as is St. Josaphat is to the eastern Church as the proper 'icon' , symbol for, and representative of 'church unity' than I can only conclude that your view of any future 'unity' entails one thing and one thing only - the east must accept terms from the west on the order of those proposed by Grant to Lee at Appomattox Court House - unconditional surrender.

Hi all. I'm not sorry to see this thread going again -- and I'm particularly interested to see if anyone will disagree with the conditional statement that I quoted earlier from Phillip Rolfes,

Quote from: Phillip Rolfes

If we follow the camp that believes St. Josaphat did not in fact kill Orthodox Christians or burn their Churches (nor was complicit with those who did so), then my original analogy still holds up.

-- but I would also like to say, just for the record, that I don't think PR and I have the same purpose in discussing this or the same attitude. I say this in light of what he said more recently:

Quote from: Phillip Rolfes

The fact of the matter is that he is revered as a saint among Ukrainian Catholics. The rest of us just have to deal with it. :p

Right believing Ukrainians, i.e. Pravoslavnij, do not.

In fact, he was revered as a saint among the Latin Poles. THEY pushed for his canonization, not the Ukrainians/Ruthenians, and given the Poles' tyranny over the Ruthenians in Galicia at the time, it would seem it was not without an agenda. The Poles, NOT the Ukrainians/Ruthenians (much less the Belarus, his nation at least in ancestry) dedicated churches to his memory shortly after his canonization, in not only the Old World, but the new. Poles, not Ruthenians nor Ukrainians, founded the Basilica of "St. Josaphat" in Milawaukee in 1888and Kashubians, not Ruthenians nor Ukrainians, built "St. Josaphat" parish in Chicago (I got thrown off of CAF when I admitted that I walked out of my way not to go by it and have to cross myself). It would seem that he is revered as a saint among Polish Latins. The Ukrainians/Ruthenians just have to deal with it, or so the Vatican said in 1868, at the Poles' urgings (and payment). Given the history of the "union of brest" in the hands of the Latin Poles, the agenda would be obvious.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Hi all. I'm not sorry to see this thread going again -- and I'm particularly interested to see if anyone will disagree with the conditional statement that I quoted earlier from Phillip Rolfes,

Quote from: Phillip Rolfes

If we follow the camp that believes St. Josaphat did not in fact kill Orthodox Christians or burn their Churches (nor was complicit with those who did so), then my original analogy still holds up.

-- but I would also like to say, just for the record, that I don't think PR and I have the same purpose in discussing this or the same attitude. I say this in light of what he said more recently:

Quote from: Phillip Rolfes

The fact of the matter is that he is revered as a saint among Ukrainian Catholics. The rest of us just have to deal with it. :p

Right believing Ukrainians, i.e. Pravoslavnij, do not.

In fact, he was revered as a saint among the Latin Poles. THEY pushed for his canonization, not the Ukrainians/Ruthenians, and given the Poles' tyranny over the Ruthenians in Galicia at the time, it would seem it was not without an agenda. The Poles, NOT the Ukrainians/Ruthenians (much less the Belarus, his nation at least in ancestry) dedicated churches to his memory shortly after his canonization, in not only the Old World, but the new. Poles, not Ruthenians nor Ukrainians, founded the Basilica of "St. Josaphat" in Milawaukee in 1888and Kashubians, not Ruthenians nor Ukrainians, built "St. Josaphat" parish in Chicago (I got thrown off of CAF when I admitted that I walked out of my way not to go by it and have to cross myself). It would seem that he is revered as a saint among Polish Latins. The Ukrainians/Ruthenians just have to deal with it, or so the Vatican said in 1868, at the Poles' urgings (and payment). Given the history of the "union of brest" in the hands of the Latin Poles, the agenda would be obvious.

Like I said earlier, he certainly isn't on the radar among the Rusyn Orthodox (Ruthenians) and the modern BCC in the US and Europe (the Ruthenians) make little mention of him as well.

By the way, this whole 'payment' issue for advocates of one 'would be saints' cause or another has not been addressed, even though I referenced the 60 Minutes piece on the subject about two weeks ago....That troubled me and I was hoping to hear a reasonable argument explaining it, none has been forthcoming.

Yes, we've dealt with them before. They can't exist: the King of Poland and Lithuania said the Orthodox did not exist after 1596. Kuntsevych died 12 November 1623 in the realm of Poland and Lithuania, where no Orthodox existed, as the Union of Brest tells us, after 1596.

"Persecut Saint Josaphat." Besides the problem of their non-existence, according to the King's enforcement of the "Union of Brest," there the problem of these non-existent Orthodox having power in Vatican supporting Poland-Lithuania, in order to persecute him.

Who are these non-existent Orthodox Christians whose "sworn testimonies" are given. Surely they had names, no?

Except of course they did exist, they even had an Orthodox bishop in Polotsk: Meletius Smotrytsky. Decrees can't force people to change their allegiance. Both Orthodox resistance to the Poles and Greek Catholic resistance to the Soviets prove that.

Give this a break. You will not change any minds here on the subject matter of this thread. I accept the fact that Ukrainian Catholics revere him as a saint. The rest of Orthodoxy has to deal with that at some point in time. Saying that does not mean that I find their hagiography to be much more than propaganda to advance the justification for the schism within traditional Ukrainian Christianity and to advance the disputes between western Ukrainians, their more Russophile minded eastern brothers and with the Russians themselves.

I have to agree with my friend. The issue is just to emotionally charged. May all the Martyrs under the Soviets, SS Tikhon of Mosocw and Vladimir of Kiev and Blessed Theodore of Mukachevo and Paul of Presov pray for us.

By the way, this whole 'payment' issue for advocates of one 'would be saints' cause or another has not been addressed, even though I referenced the 60 Minutes piece on the subject about two weeks ago....That troubled me and I was hoping to hear a reasonable argument explaining it, none has been forthcoming.

where was that?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Yes, we've dealt with them before. They can't exist: the King of Poland and Lithuania said the Orthodox did not exist after 1596. Kuntsevych died 12 November 1623 in the realm of Poland and Lithuania, where no Orthodox existed, as the Union of Brest tells us, after 1596.

"Persecut Saint Josaphat." Besides the problem of their non-existence, according to the King's enforcement of the "Union of Brest," there the problem of these non-existent Orthodox having power in Vatican supporting Poland-Lithuania, in order to persecute him.

Who are these non-existent Orthodox Christians whose "sworn testimonies" are given. Surely they had names, no?

Except of course they did exist, they even had an Orthodox bishop in Polotsk: Meletius Smotrytsky.

Actually, they had an Orthodox bishop in L'viv and Przemyshl/Peremyshl, and would for nearly a century after Kuntsevych, joined later by the Orthodox replacement in Kiev and three other Orthodox bishops.

Decrees can't force people to change their allegiance. Both Orthodox resistance to the Poles and Greek Catholic resistance to the Soviets prove that.

a point not often acknowledged. My first question, since we have not been given any details on these "testimonies" beyond that those testifying were reportedly Orthodox (a dangerous thing to admit) and that they admitted persecuting Kuntsevych (on the one hand an even more dangerous thing to admit, on the other a rather odd claim as Kuntsevych was the one with the army and government on his side), is was this testimony, if it exists, given in exchange for immunity?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Give this a break. You will not change any minds here on the subject matter of this thread. I accept the fact that Ukrainian Catholics revere him as a saint. The rest of Orthodoxy has to deal with that at some point in time. Saying that does not mean that I find their hagiography to be much more than propaganda to advance the justification for the schism within traditional Ukrainian Christianity and to advance the disputes between western Ukrainians, their more Russophile minded eastern brothers and with the Russians themselves.

I have to agree with my friend. The issue is just to emotionally charged. May all the Martyrs under the Soviets, SS Tikhon of Mosocw and Vladimir of Kiev and Blessed Theodore of Mukachevo and Paul of Presov pray for us.

Two ethnically Rusyn Orthodox Bishops of the same generation did much in their lives to heal division in our lifetime.

Metropolitan Laurus of ROCOR worked tirelessly to bring together the long warring factions of Russian Orthodoxy in the face of great internal opposition and the late Metropolitan Nicholas did much to heal the long festering wounds in the American Rusyn communities caused by the schism within Greek Catholicism - both here and in Europe.

Neither would say much about emotionalism or the arguments of the past used to propagandize the faithful - they would merely say that we live in the present and we have our own crosses to bear.

When Metropolitan Nicholas proclaimed the Synaxis of the Orthodox Saints of Carpatho-Rus, he asked the faithful to also remember in their prayers the 20th century martyrs of the Communists - Blessed Teodor or Mukachevo and Paul of Presov. This was a bold, but if you knew him well, and the pain that many of his generation suffered on both sides of the church's walls, this was a most understandable and remarkable request.

The acts in lives of these two recently departed Orthodox Bishops are the things we should consider - not the heated acts of the long departed who lived in different times and under difficult political circumstances. I will refrain from judging them, as well as refraining from spreading their 'praises.'

For those of you who read Ukrainian and would like to know what information was collected on Saint Josaphat, the Basilians of Poland have published in book form the documents that were involved for his glorification. These documents were translated from Latin into Ukrainian. Here is the link in Ukrainian.

Also, I would like to recommend the book, Saint Jospahat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. It's been out of print for many years, so your best bet is through an inter-library loan. The book contains excerpts from Saint Josaphat's letters, where he defends his innocence against accusations that he harmed Orthodox Christians. Also there are the sworn testimonies given by Orthodox Christians who admitted to persecuting Saint Josaphat, yet defended his innocence and holiness.

I have much respect and admiration for the Basilian fathers, for many years they were our neighbors at the old UGCC in Binghamton before they built a new facility and they were kind and humble men. One of them had gone to seminary with my uncle in Canada prior to my uncle's leaving the Greek Catholic Church to become the first married priest ordained by Bishop Orestes Chornock after his consecration in 1938.

However, any source material on this subject originating from them is not likely to be taken as more than polemic by most Orthodox. As one Orthodox with great empathy for my Greek Catholic brothers and sisters, I have to say that the use of St. Josaphat as an exemplar of Church unity does make all of us Orthodox 'run for the hills.' I just don't get it, no disrespect intended.

You live with the disdain toward Catholics, and dis-information about Catholics on this board every day and YOU don't get it?...well...I get it.

And sure...the documentation about St. Josaphat MUST be all lies. We can rest assured that the saint ate the dogs that ate the Orthodox corpses that the saint dug up and fed to them, however.

M.

My comments hardly merited such sarcasm - especially from someone who professes to have much love and understanding of the eastern church. It is not unreasonable from an academic point of view to discount material prepared by a group with a 'stake' in the argument, particularly when the argument is one of such emotional power - and one which has been the source of such exaggeration and lies - from both sides historically.

You would have me accept at face value 'apologia' issued by authors with a stake in the game while dismissing polemics from the other side. Neither can stand the scrutiny of critical analysis.

If you are honestly telling the Orthodox posters here that the use of a Saint of the western Church as controversial as is St. Josaphat is to the eastern Church as the proper 'icon' , symbol for, and representative of 'church unity' than I can only conclude that your view of any future 'unity' entails one thing and one thing only - the east must accept terms from the west on the order of those proposed by Grant to Lee at Appomattox Court House - unconditional surrender. Not gonna happen. And I don't expect it to happen the other way either. By the way, I also take what your Pope says at face value in these matters and I don't see his public statements on the matter (nor those of his late predecessor) saying any such thing as well.

Give this a break. You will not change any minds here on the subject matter of this thread. I accept the fact that Ukrainian Catholics revere him as a saint. The rest of Orthodoxy has to deal with that at some point in time. Saying that does not mean that I find their hagiography to be much more than propaganda to advance the justification for the schism within traditional Ukrainian Christianity and to advance the disputes between western Ukrainians, their more Russophile minded eastern brothers and with the Russians themselves.

If I did not give a rat's rump about Orthodoxy, I'd be hawking my wares at CAF. The reason my note dripped with sarcasm is precisely because I do care and precisely because I can be hurt by you and others, and I am, repeatedly and without much fanfare on my part save for the occasional sarcastic squall when the truth gets lumped in with lies so that nothing at all changes.

I have no idea where you get the idea that I see St. Josaphat as a symbol for unity. I've never presented that argument at all. You presume in your haste to chastise.

What concerns me is what I said above, the absolute refusal to consider any evidence gathered from the Catholic point of view simply because it is Catholic. From your comments here you are not better able to add detail to your rejection than I am when I give the Church, my Church, the benefit of the doubt.

The fact that Orthodox believers continue the kinds of behaviors that have spawned continued disunity and do so with venom and a vengeance tells me something about the past and the present. I hope to God it is not the bellwether of the future. When I stop caring, you'll know. I won't be here.

If we follow the camp that believes St. Josaphat did not in fact kill Orthodox Christians or burn their Churches (nor was complicit with those who did so), then my original analogy still holds up.

Here's a thought that I will throw out there for consideration: If St. Josaphat did not do those things (and I'm not saying he didn't, just if) then I think it would be quite appropriate to compare him with Alexis Toth, but not really with Mark of Ephesus. Why? Because Josaphat and Alexis were both instrumental in getting people to "switch sides" (from Orthodoxy to Catholicism or vice versa). Mark, however, didn't so much try to get people to switch sides but just focused on defending the integrity of his own side.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.

There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.

Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?

There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.

Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?

Sure we can: history can document propoganda back millenia.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.

Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?

This may not be the best of analogies, but isn't writing or documenting history a little like gathering statistics and then interpreting them? Mind you, I'm neither an historian nor a statistician--phew!

There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.

Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?

There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.

Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?

Sure we can: history can document propoganda back millenia.

That's what I thought.

So all that's really being said here is that if the documents are Orthodox Catholic then they are true and if they are Papal Catholic then they are false...

There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.

Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?

Sure we can: history can document propoganda back millenia.

That's what I thought.

So all that's really being said here is that if the documents are Orthodox Catholic then they are true and if they are Papal Catholic then they are false...

I got that...

You would do better to get the alleged documents (IIRC, you claimed to have seen them once) and produce them for inspection. So far, we have basically been told to take known biased sources at their word.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.

Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?

Sure we can: history can document propoganda back millenia.

That's what I thought.

So all that's really being said here is that if the documents are Orthodox Catholic then they are true and if they are Papal Catholic then they are false...

I got that...

You would do better to get the alleged documents (IIRC, you claimed to have seen them once) and produce them for inspection. So far, we have basically been told to take known biased sources at their word.

The only ones who absolutely KNOW them to be biased are the ones who would rather shoot the messenger than consider any other possibility than the one they have locked on to because it suits an emotional need.

There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.

Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?

Sure we can: history can document propoganda back millenia.

That's what I thought.

So all that's really being said here is that if the documents are Orthodox Catholic then they are true and if they are Papal Catholic then they are false...

I got that...

You would do better to get the alleged documents (IIRC, you claimed to have seen them once) and produce them for inspection. So far, we have basically been told to take known biased sources at their word.

I take it you're referring to "known [Catholic] biased sources"? If so, are you implying that any known or unknown Orthodox sources are *not* biased?

There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.

Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?

Sure we can: history can document propoganda back millenia.

That's what I thought.

So all that's really being said here is that if the documents are Orthodox Catholic then they are true and if they are Papal Catholic then they are false...

I got that...

You would do better to get the alleged documents (IIRC, you claimed to have seen them once) and produce them for inspection. So far, we have basically been told to take known biased sources at their word.

I take it you're referring to "known [Catholic] biased sources"? If so, are you implying that any known or unknown Orthodox sources are *not* biased?

The szlachta were not Orthodox, the Orthodox szlach having been all but eliminated, the scions of the Ostrogski, for instance, defiling the memory of their fathers by submitting to the Vatican, and dying out. Lew Sapieha had apostacized many times over before he submitted to enforcing the Vatican's "union of brest."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.

Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?

Of course not, but a "history" written by, or encouraged by patrons of, Governor William Bradford is surely going to contain a different 'history' than one commissioned by say, Squanto.

Our Christian heroes who led the expulsion of the Moors from the European continent are surely not written up as heroes by the scribes of Damascus, are they?

I really think that all you you engaging in this endless back and forth know that and you are NEVER going to convince the other that you are right and they are wrong.

There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.

Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?

Of course not, but a "history" written by, or encouraged by patrons of, Governor William Bradford is surely going to contain a different 'history' than one commissioned by say, Squanto.

Our Christian heroes who led the expulsion of the Moors from the European continent are surely not written up as heroes by the scribes of Damascus, are they?

I really think that all you you engaging in this endless back and forth know that and you are NEVER going to convince the other that you are right and they are wrong.

Of course not. It's all triumphalism and pride and ego wrapped up in hubris and "good intentions." Threads like this, full of vainglory and adults acting like crossword kindergartners ("Are so!"), are one of the reasons I burned out as a mod.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.

Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?

Sure we can: history can document propoganda back millenia.

That's what I thought.

So all that's really being said here is that if the documents are Orthodox Catholic then they are true and if they are Papal Catholic then they are false...

I got that...

You would do better to get the alleged documents (IIRC, you claimed to have seen them once) and produce them for inspection. So far, we have basically been told to take known biased sources at their word.

I take it you're referring to "known [Catholic] biased sources"? If so, are you implying that any known or unknown Orthodox sources are *not* biased?

The szlachta were not Orthodox, the Orthodox szlach having been all but eliminated, the scions of the Ostrogski, for instance, defiling the memory of their fathers by submitting to the Vatican, and dying out. Lew Sapieha had apostacized many times over before he submitted to enforcing the Vatican's "union of brest."

There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.

Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?

Of course not, but a "history" written by, or encouraged by patrons of, Governor William Bradford is surely going to contain a different 'history' than one commissioned by say, Squanto.

Our Christian heroes who led the expulsion of the Moors from the European continent are surely not written up as heroes by the scribes of Damascus, are they?

I really think that all you you engaging in this endless back and forth know that and you are NEVER going to convince the other that you are right and they are wrong.

I didn't mean to challenge you so doggedly just to be mean. I do think this clarification is helpful.

There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.

Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?

Sure we can: history can document propoganda back millenia.

That's what I thought.

So all that's really being said here is that if the documents are Orthodox Catholic then they are true and if they are Papal Catholic then they are false...

I got that...

You would do better to get the alleged documents (IIRC, you claimed to have seen them once) and produce them for inspection. So far, we have basically been told to take known biased sources at their word.

I take it you're referring to "known [Catholic] biased sources"? If so, are you implying that any known or unknown Orthodox sources are *not* biased?

The szlachta were not Orthodox, the Orthodox szlach having been all but eliminated, the scions of the Ostrogski, for instance, defiling the memory of their fathers by submitting to the Vatican, and dying out. Lew Sapieha had apostacized many times over before he submitted to enforcing the Vatican's "union of brest."

Did that answer my questions?

I took the bull by the horn and brought up the non-Orthodox sources not biased, at least not in favor of the Orthodox.

So far the sources offered are the general, hagiographical fluff. So far, I haven't seen any hatchet jobs offered against him, just what his contemporaries had to say.

« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 07:22:38 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

So, no one has a problem with killing a man without trial, because you heard some rumors about him?

I just want to make sure we're on the same page.

If the truth of the faith hinges on yet another of the endless interreligious and interethnic squabbles in Poland, which are in turn byproducts of the endless mess between Poland and Russia, then it becomes a faith that's like the Mandaeans- you're born into it, or you're outside it forever. Good luck to you if you didn't happen to pick the right parents.

So, no one has a problem with killing a man without trial, because you heard some rumors about him?

I just want to make sure we're on the same page.

If the truth of the faith hinges on yet another of the endless interreligious and interethnic squabbles in Poland, which are in turn byproducts of the endless mess between Poland and Russia, then it becomes a faith that's like the Mandaeans- you're born into it, or you're outside it forever. Good luck to you if you didn't happen to pick the right parents.

If the truth of the faith hinges on yet another of the endless interreligious and interethnic squabbles in Poland, which are in turn byproducts of the endless mess between Poland and Russia, then it becomes a faith that's like the Mandaeans- you're born into it, or you're outside it forever. Good luck to you if you didn't happen to pick the right parents.

The Ostrogskis and other Ruthenian nobles had the right parents. They disgraced their memory by turning their backs of the Faith of their Fathers and picking the wrong faith.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

If the truth of the faith hinges on yet another of the endless interreligious and interethnic squabbles in Poland, which are in turn byproducts of the endless mess between Poland and Russia, then it becomes a faith that's like the Mandaeans- you're born into it, or you're outside it forever. Good luck to you if you didn't happen to pick the right parents.

What Russia? Russia hadn't been involved with that case until about 30 years after Kuncewicz' death.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

If the truth of the faith hinges on yet another of the endless interreligious and interethnic squabbles in Poland, which are in turn byproducts of the endless mess between Poland and Russia, then it becomes a faith that's like the Mandaeans- you're born into it, or you're outside it forever. Good luck to you if you didn't happen to pick the right parents.

What Russia? Russia hadn't been involved with that case until about 30 years after Kuncewicz' death.

Russia is always involved as the scapegoat as to the failure of Brest. Look at the assumption of the Vatican, the Polish government and Latin hierarchy, and the UGCC that the Orthodox Ukrainians etc. would rush to the Vatican at the fall of the Romanovs. The dismal failure of Poland's Revindication Campaigns, the "Neo-Union" and Card. d'Herbigny etc. took them by complete surprise.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

If the truth of the faith hinges on yet another of the endless interreligious and interethnic squabbles in Poland, which are in turn byproducts of the endless mess between Poland and Russia, then it becomes a faith that's like the Mandaeans- you're born into it, or you're outside it forever. Good luck to you if you didn't happen to pick the right parents.

What Russia? Russia hadn't been involved with that case until about 30 years after Kuncewicz' death.

Russia is always involved as the scapegoat as to the failure of Brest. Look at the assumption of the Vatican, the Polish government and Latin hierarchy, and the UGCC that the Orthodox Ukrainians etc. would rush to the Vatican at the fall of the Romanovs. The dismal failure of Poland's Revindication Campaigns, the "Neo-Union" and Card. d'Herbigny etc. took them by complete surprise.

Always the problem, particularly in the west, when the clergy get intoxicated by their relationships with secular rulers.

If the truth of the faith hinges on yet another of the endless interreligious and interethnic squabbles in Poland, which are in turn byproducts of the endless mess between Poland and Russia, then it becomes a faith that's like the Mandaeans- you're born into it, or you're outside it forever. Good luck to you if you didn't happen to pick the right parents.

What Russia? Russia hadn't been involved with that case until about 30 years after Kuncewicz' death.

Russia is always involved as the scapegoat as to the failure of Brest. Look at the assumption of the Vatican, the Polish government and Latin hierarchy, and the UGCC that the Orthodox Ukrainians etc. would rush to the Vatican at the fall of the Romanovs. The dismal failure of Poland's Revindication Campaigns, the "Neo-Union" and Card. d'Herbigny etc. took them by complete surprise.

Always the problem, particularly in the west, when the clergy get intoxicated by their relationships with secular rulers.

If the truth of the faith hinges on yet another of the endless interreligious and interethnic squabbles in Poland, which are in turn byproducts of the endless mess between Poland and Russia, then it becomes a faith that's like the Mandaeans- you're born into it, or you're outside it forever. Good luck to you if you didn't happen to pick the right parents.

What Russia? Russia hadn't been involved with that case until about 30 years after Kuncewicz' death.

Russia is always involved as the scapegoat as to the failure of Brest. Look at the assumption of the Vatican, the Polish government and Latin hierarchy, and the UGCC that the Orthodox Ukrainians etc. would rush to the Vatican at the fall of the Romanovs. The dismal failure of Poland's Revindication Campaigns, the "Neo-Union" and Card. d'Herbigny etc. took them by complete surprise.

Always the problem, particularly in the west, when the clergy get intoxicated by their relationships with secular rulers.

Sounds to me like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

A big 'ol black pot calling a little grey kettle, black.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.